A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies

Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 77-86

  Calí, Andrea ^a   Gottlob, Georg ^a   Lukasiewicz, Thomas ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chase; Complexity; Conjunctive queries; Constraints; Datalog; Dependencies; Ontologies; Query evaluation; SemanticWeb; Tractability

Indexed keywords

CHASE; COMPLEXITY; CONJUNCTIVE QUERIES; CONSTRAINTS; DATALOG; DEPENDENCIES; QUERY EVALUATION; TRACTABILITY;

DATA DESCRIPTION; DATA HANDLING; QUERY LANGUAGES; SEMANTIC WEB;

ONTOLOGY;

EID: 70350662981     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1559795.1559809     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
2. S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Datalog extensions for database queries and updates. JCSS, 43(1):62-124, 1991.
3. H. Andréka, I. Németi, and J. van Benthem. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. J. Phil. Log., 27(3):217-274, 1998.
4. K. Apt, H. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 89-148. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
5. A. Artale, D. Calvanese, R. Kontchakov, M. Zakharyaschev. DL-Lite in the light of first-order logic. In Proc. AAAI-2007, pp. 361-366. AAAI Press, 2007. Extended report: The DL-Lite family and relations. School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Birkbeck College, 2009.
6. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proc. ICALP-1981, LNCS 115, pp. 73-85. Springer, 1981.
7. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. A proof procedure for data dependencies. J. ACM, 31(4):718-741, 1984.
8. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Sci. Am., 284:34-43, 2001.
9. D. Brickley and R. Guha. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF Schema, 2004. W3C Recommendation.
10. L. Cabibbo. The expressive power of stratified logic programs with value invention. Inf. Comput., 147(1):22-56, 1998.
11. M. Cadoli, L. Palopoli, and M. Lenzerini. Datalog and description logics: Expressive power. In Proc. DBPL-1997, LNCS 1369, pp. 281-298. Springer, 1998.
12. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and M. Kifer. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In Proc. KR-2008, pp. 70-80. AAAI Press, 2008. Revised version: http://benner.dbai. tuwien.ac.at/staff/gottlob/CGK.pdf.
13. A. Calì, D. Lembo, and R. Rosati. On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases. In Proc. PODS-2003, pp. 260-271. ACM Press, 2003.
14. F. Calimeri, S. Cozza, and G. Ianni. External sources of knowledge and value invention in logic programming. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 50(3/4):333-361, 2007.
15. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning, 39(3):385-429, 2007.
16. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proc. STOC-1977, pp. 77-90. ACM Press, 1977.
17. A. K. Chandra and M. Y. Vardi. The implication problem for functional and inclusion dependencies is undecidable. SIAM J. Comput., 14:671-677, 1985.
18. E. Dantsin, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and A. Voronkov. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv., 33(3):374-425, 2001.
19. J. de Bruijn and S. Heymans. Logical foundations of (e)RDF(S): Complexity and reasoning. In Proc. ISWC-2007, LNCS 4825, pp. 86-99. Springer, 2007.
20. A. Deutsch, A. Nash, and J. B. Remmel. The chase revisited. In Proc. PODS-2008, pp. 149-158. ACM Press, 2008.
21. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf. AL-log: Integrating Datalog and description logics. J. Intell. Inf. Syst., 10(3):227-252, 1998.
22. R. Fagin. A normal form for relational databases that is based on domians and keys. ACM TODS, 6(3):387-415, 1981.
23. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, R. J. Miller, and L. Popa. Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci., 336(1):89-124, 2005.
24. B. Faltings and S. Macho-Gonzalez. Open constraint programming. Artif. Intell., 161(1-2):181-208, 2005.
25. D. Johnson and A. Klug. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. JCSS, 28:167-189, 1984.
26. M. Lenzerini. Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In Proc. PODS-2002, pp. 233-246. ACM Press, 2002.
27. D. Maier, A. O. Mendelzon, and Y. Sagiv. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM TODS, 4(4):455-469, 1979.
28. D. Mailharrow. A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artif. Intell. for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12(4):383-397, 1998.
29. P. F. Patel-Schneider and I. Horrocks. Position paper: A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the Semantic Web. In Proc. WWW-2006, pp. 3-12. ACM Press, 2006.
30. A. Poggi, D. Lembo, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Linking data to ontologies. J. Data Semantics, 10:133-173, 2008.
31. T. C. Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 193-216. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
32. R. Rosati. On combining description logic ontologies and nonrecursive Datalog rules. In Proc. RR-2008, LNCS 5341, pp. 13-27. Springer, 2008.